Category Archives: Retaliation

A nurse, Rachael Hogan, working at the Syracuse, New York Veterans Affairs Medical Center allegedly faced retaliation after reporting a rape accusation made by a patient to a superior, sexual harassment, and negligent work behavior. The allegations stated that superiors told Hogan that action would be taken to see her terminated; after this, Hogan disclosed to her compliance officer the allegations. She received an unsatisfactory report from the review board. Hogan’s complaint of retaliation was investigated and the VA agreed to new job placement of Hogan at the Syracuse VA under different supervision, and revision of her performance rating. Whistleblower protection training for managers will be conducted at the facility. State and federal laws are in place to protect employees from sexual harassment, and to protect workers that report illegal acts in the workplace, from retaliation. Reporting illegal acts, such as sexual harassment and discrimination, is sometimes called ‘whistleblowing’.

Employees have the right to a safe work environment, free of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. The article below details the alleged retaliation and discrimination a Metro-North Railroad employee was subjected to after reporting his injury on the job. Following a federal investigation, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ordered Metro-North Railroad to pay a $250,000 fine. A supervisor tried to intimidate the worker into silence by stating that past injured employees who reported their workplace injuries faced write ups and lack of promotions. In order to keep workers and the public safe, workers must be able to report work injuries and safety violations without fear of retaliation. When employers threaten workers with discipline, a demotion, or termination if they report their injury, the worker may be denied proper medical attention and possible future injuries may not be prevented. Metro-North has since expanded training for their employees on safety requirements and rules in an effort to promote a stronger safety culture.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeks to protect workers from employment discrimination based on protected classes such as race and national origin. Three oil field service companies operating in Edgerton, Wyoming were sued by the EEOC on behalf of employees who were allegedly discriminated against based on their race and national origin. Recently, the EEOC won a $1.2 million consent decree against these companies, but no wrongdoing was admitted. As stated in the lawsuit, two company managers were accused of harassing and using multiple racial slurs towards Native American, Indian, Hispanic, Mexican, and black employees. Discrimination based on race and national origin is unlawful, as is retaliation against an individual who makes a charge of discrimination. In addition to the $1.2 million consent decree, these companies are to review their equal employment opportunity practices, which are in place to protect current employees and prevent discriminatory hiring practices. The allegations are denied, but employees will be trained about discrimination and a hotline will be created for workers complaining of harassment or retaliation in the workplace.

Sexual harassment claims made by employees or students should always be taken seriously. The federal government has been scrutinizing how colleges handle sexual harassment claims and rape allegations. This affects both students as well as employees of colleges and universities. Currently, Yale University is being criticized for how they chose to handle a recent sexual harassment case. According to the allegations, a female researcher at Yale was being harassed by the cardiology chief. She told him to stop the sexual harassment. As a result, she was subjected to a hostile work environment. At the time of the harassment, she was seeing a Yale cardiologist, who is now her husband. The harasser interfered with the advancement of their professional careers. The couple brought their concerns to Yale’s attention, but did not receive protection from the sexual harassment and retaliation. The couple then filed formal complaints with the University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct, regarding the sexual harassment and retaliation. The harasser was not terminated, but rather placed on an 18 month suspension. Many faculty members within the medical school do not feel the harassment was properly addressed. Lack of action by the provost and leniency towards the harasser has drawn negative attention. When reports of harassment and retaliation are not taken seriously by schools and employers, this can indicate there is a culture that tolerates harassment. Comments made by the provost were controversial and suggested a disinterest in gender equality. When people in positions of authority refuse to take proper action in order to prevent harassment, it may be viewed that the inappropriate and illegal behavior is being condoned.

A New York Civil Liberties Union lawsuit challenged the Salvation Army’s requirement of employees in its social services programs to identify their church affiliation. Although the Salvation Army’s mission is served in accordance with the Christian faith, the settlement reached ensured that government funds would not be used to discriminate. Although the Salvation Army does have the right to promote its religion, it does not have the right to discriminate against employees or recipients of social services based on religion. The Salvation Army was requiring employees to identify their church affiliation and how often they attended church. The Salvation Army receives government funding; no employees should face religious discrimination nor should recipients of social services paid for by taxpayers face religious discrimination. The organization has the right to be affiliated with religion; the settlement will prevent the organization from taking any discriminatory actions based on religion and will also prevent inquiries into workers’ religious practices.

Organizations that have religious requirements in place can use such information to discriminate based on religion. Former employees have made retaliation claims against the Salvation Army. The claims describe how two employees faced retaliation as a result of protesting the religious requirements that were imposed on government-funded employees. The Salvation Army must follow equal opportunity measures and a system has been set in place for the New York Civil Liberties Union to monitor the hiring practices of the Salvation Army and the selection of recipients of social services in order to prevent future religious discrimination. Employment rights laws are in place in order to protect employees from discrimination as well as protecting employees from retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices.

The United Nations Ethics Office receives reports of wrongdoing from employees and their appeals for protection against retaliation. The term ‘whistleblower’ is used for an employee who raises a concern about a wrongdoing in their workplace. Like employees who fear retaliation for reporting discrimination, employees who ‘blow the whistle’ on their employer fear retaliation. Retaliation in the workplace may include but is not limited to: a denied promotion, cut back in work hours and wages, and job termination.

Concerns have been raised about the U.N. Ethics Office and lack of action to protect whistleblowers. The article below provides an example of an employee who was retaliated against and terminated by his employer after he reported illegal procedures used in the U.N. Development Program. The U.N. Ethics Office failed to provide this employee with protection against retaliation. The U.N. Ethics Office receives many appeals from U.N. employees for protection against retaliation, but only investigates a few appeals. Whistleblowers still do not receive adequate protection. The effectiveness of the U.N.’s whistleblower policy is questionable and the political leaders who have power to change this have not taken proper action. Retaliation is a serious problem in the workplace; employees have the right to a safe work environment, free of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act has been in place since 1978, but employees still face pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. In the last ten years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has seen an increase in the number of complaints regarding pregnancy-based discrimination. Female employees returning from maternity leave may face a demotion, be discriminated against when applying for higher paying job opportunities, or a cut in hours resulting in lost wages. Pregnant workers can face discrimination and harassment in the workplace before taking maternity leave. An employer may decide that a pregnant worker is too much liability or will not be able to fulfill the same job duties compared to a non-pregnant worker; this may also lead to discriminatory hiring practices. Discrimination against a worker due to their pregnancy is employment discrimination. When experiencing pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, a pregnant employee may find it impossible to fight the biases such as the bias that a mother will not be as focused or as competent as a male employee or female employee who does not have children. Employees facing discrimination in the workplace often find it difficult to stand up for their rights, because retaliation by the employer may cause the employee to lose their job.

The recession affected older workers. Age discrimination occurs while an older employee is still working. Age discrimination also occurs during the job application process. While many employees were laid off and lost their jobs during the recession, older employees often were the first to be let go. The age discrimination continues when these employees try to regain employment but find they are unable to obtain another job. They find that potential employers overlook their experience, consider them outdated and discriminate against them due to their age. In the workplace, a variety of common signs may indicate your employer, supervisor or a coworker discriminates against workers based on their age. Older employees, including yourself, may be subjected to verbal harassment and witness younger employees being treated with favoritism or special treatment. Other signs of age discrimination are seen in the termination of older employees who are then replaced by younger workers. Upon reporting discrimination, workers often fear retaliation and may choose to contact the EEOC or an attorney. The law protects employees from retaliation for reporting age discrimination.

The unemployment rate of American youth remains high and older job seekers are facing employment difficulties as well. Patterns in job rejection among older workers may suggest age discrimination is taking place. Age is a protected class and it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against a job applicant or employee based on their age. Age discrimination is not limited to workers currently employed.

In addition to facing age discrimination, older job applicants are forced to face the very real discrimination against applicants who have been out of work for more than 6 months. These individuals might choose to tweak their resumes so that it is not so obvious they are 50 years or older. They do this in hopes of dwindling the effects of age discrimination which may be prevalent during the review of job applicants’ resumes. The older job applicants know their experience and qualifications are not the issue. Instead of listing all of their employment experience, applicants may choose to remove their initial years of experience in order to avoid ‘dating’ themselves. Many feel this is a necessity after being out of work for excessive amounts of time; it may increase the job applicant’s chances of getting an interview. Some applicants may be in this difficult position because they experience age discrimination on the job; age discrimination may include harassment, retaliation, a demotion, denial of a promotion, or termination.

Employers should always be concerned about workplace harassment; one way to fight it is to take steps to prevent it. Preventing workplace harassment could include steps such as encouraging employees to report any and all harassment. In businesses, this includes harassment of an employee by a third party. Training and educating staff on what harassment is can help employees feel more comfortable reporting it. Harassment can take many forms, including but not limited to sexual harassment. In order for policies set in place to keep the workplace free from harassment, they must be enforced by the employer. Employees may be hesitant to report an employee who has more authority; employees may feel it is useless to report a third-party, such as a customer, as it is often viewed as something that must be tolerated. Employees may fear retaliation in the form of demotion or termination for reporting harassment or discrimination and it is up to the employer to investigate all complaints.

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.﻿
This is provided as a guide only, and not legal advice. Please contact our firm at 1-800-578-4357 for a no-charge legal consultation for sex harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination.